WORKPLACE VIOLENCE PREVENTION RESEARCH
RELEASE DATE: May 2, 2002
RFA: OH-02-011 (This RFA has been modified, see RFA-OH-06-004)
PARTICIPATING INSTITUTES AND CENTERS (ICs):
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
(http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/homepage.html)
LETTER OF INTENT RECEIPT DATE: June 11, 2002
APPLICATION RECEIPT DATE: July 11, 2002
THIS RFA CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
o Purpose of the RFA
o Research Objectives
o Useful References
o Mechanism(s)of Support
o Funds Available
o Eligible Institutions
o Individuals Eligible to Become Principal Investigations
o Where to Send Inquiries
o Letter of Intent
o Submitting an Application
o Peer Review Process
o Review Criteria
o Programmatic Review Criteria
o Receipt and Review Schedule
o Award Criteria
o Required Federal Citations
PURPOSE OF THIS RFA
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH),
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the
availability of funds for fiscal year (FY) 2002 for research grant
(R01) applications to support innovative research designed to
reduce future health and safety impacts associated with violence
in the workplace. The purpose of this announcement is to enhance
existing knowledge and improve the safety and health of workers by
supporting research on workplace violence which addresses risk
factors, development of new interventions, and evaluation of
existing interventions.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Background
In the 9-year period from 1992 through 2000, there were an average
of 896 workplace homicides in the U.S. each year, ranging from a
high of 1,080 in 1994 to a low of 651 in 1999. The most common
scenario of workplace homicide was a retail worker killed during
the course of a robbery or other crime. Taxicab drivers have the
very highest rates of workplace homicide. Other circumstances or
perpetrators of workplace homicides include co-workers or former
co-workers, customers, clients or patients, and current or former
domestic partners. From 1993 to 1999, there were an average 1.7
million nonfatal violent victimizations in the U.S. each year,
accounting for 18% of all violent crime during the 7-year period.
Of the occupations for which data were available, police officers
had the highest rate of workplace violent crime at 261 per 1,000
persons, followed by corrections officers (156 per 1,000) and
taxicab drivers (128 per 1,000). The vast majority (75%) of the
violent victimizations were simple assaults.
Although the risks for fatal workplace violence have been more
completely described and recognized over the last decade, there
remain a number of questions regarding the nature, magnitude and
impact of workplace violence, especially with regard to nonfatal
events. As well, with increasing recognition of the problem,
employers, workers, labor unions, and others have developed and
implemented a range of strategies to address the risk factors for
workplace violence. Unfortunately, however, there has been little
rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of the range of efforts
undertaken to date. Therefore, regulators, employers, workers, and
safety and health professionals do not know the most effective
components of a violence prevention program, either generally or
for specific high-risk settings.
In April 2000, the University of Iowa sponsored a Workplace
Violence Intervention Research Workshop in Washington, DC. One of
the fundamental organizing principles from the workshop is that
research and prevention efforts may be more clearly understood
when workplace violence is divided into four categories: Criminal
Intent (Type I) when the perpetrator has no legitimate
relationship to the business and is usually committing a crime in
conjunction with the violence, Customer/Client (Type II) when the
perpetrator has a legitimate relationship with the business and
becomes violent while being served by the business, Worker-on-
Worker (Type III) when the perpetrator is an employee or past
employee of the business who attacks or threatens another
employee, and Personal Relationship (Type IV) when the perpetrator
does not have a relationship with the workplace, but has a
personal relationship with the intended victim. "Workplace
Violence: A Report to the Nation" identifies important research
questions in each of these four categories.
Research Goals
Despite efforts on the part of researchers and others in
government, industry, labor, and academia, our knowledge regarding
the incidence and distribution of workplace violence, especially
nonfatal workplace violence, is still incomplete. As well, there
has been little rigorous scientific research on the development of
new interventions and the effectiveness of existing strategies for
the reduction of workplace violence.
Risk factor studies are especially needed on nonfatal workplace
violence of all four types. There is a particular dearth of
information on organizational factors and the risks for workplace
violence. Scientific research for the development of new
interventions is also needed. Intervention evaluation proposals
should include both process and outcome measures. Process
measures should be detailed enough to allow for replication of the
intervention. Outcome measures of interest include, but are not
limited to: incidence, distribution, and magnitude of workplace
violence among various worker populations and the costs of
workplace violence to victims (i.e. workers), employers, and
society. Research proposals need to indicate that the study
design and size is sufficient to produce generalizeable results,
to detect intervention effects, and to distinguish changes in
outcomes of interest from the intervention with confounding
variables, such as natural changes, extraneous events, etc.
Proposals that focus on or include intervention evaluation will be
given priority.
USEFUL REFERENCES
In April 2000, with funding from the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health and the National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control, the University of Iowa sponsored a
Workplace Violence Intervention Research Workshop in Washington,
DC. Thirty-seven invited participants representing industry,
organized labor, municipal, state, and federal governments, and
academia gathered to review the state of knowledge regarding
workplace violence and to make recommendations for research.
Theme papers from the workshop addressing the roles of
surveillance and evaluation research, legislation, and regulation
as well as business and labor perspectives on workplace violence
were published in the February 2001 issue of the American Journal
of Preventive Medicine. The discussions and recommendations from
the workshop were summarized in "Workplace Violence: A Report to
the Nation" published in February 2001. The full report is
available at www.public-health.uiowa.edu/iprc
MECHANISM OF SUPPORT
The administrative and funding instrument to be used for this
program will be a research grant (R01). The total requested
project period for an application submitted in response to this
RFA may not exceed five (5) years. The award and level of support
depends on the receipt of applications of high scientific merit.
Although this program is provided for in the financial plans of
NIOSH, the award pursuant to this RFA is contingent upon the
availability of funds for this purpose.
This RFA uses just-in-time concepts. This RFA uses the detailed
budget format rather than the modular budget format.
FUNDS AVAILABLE
NIOSH intends to commit approximately $1,500,000 in FY 2002 to
fund 4-7 research grant awards (R01). The maximum amount that may
be requested is $250,000 in direct costs for both risk factor
research and new intervention research and $400,000 in direct
costs for intervention evaluation research.
Awards will be made for a twelve-month budget period within a
project period up to three (3) years for both risk factor and new
intervention research and up to five (5) years for intervention
evaluation research.
USE OF FUNDS
Applicants should include in their budgets funds for one trip per
year for an annual meeting of grantees to provide an opportunity
for the exchange of program and scientific information, to be held
in Morgantown, WV.
ELIGIBLE INSTITUTIONS
You may submit an application(s) if your institution has any of
the following characteristics:
o For-profit or non-profit organizations
o Public or private institutions, such as universities, colleges,
hospitals, and laboratories
o Units of State and local governments
o Eligible agencies of the Federal government
o Domestic or foreign
Note: Title 2 of the United States Code section 1611 states that
an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal
Revenue Code that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible
to receive Federal funds constituting an award, grant, or loan.
INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE TO BECOME PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS
Any individual with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary
to carry out the proposed research is invited to work with their
institution to develop an application for support. Individuals
from under-represented racial and ethnic groups as well as
individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for
NIOSH programs.
WHERE TO SEND INQUIRIES
We encourage inquiries concerning this RFA and welcome the
opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.
Inquiries may fall into two areas: scientific/research and
financial or grants management issues. This RFA and other CDC
Announcements can be found on the CDC HomePage (www.cdc.gov) under
the Funding section (see Grants and Cooperative Agreements scroll
down to Occupational Safety and Health). This RFA can also be
found on the NIOSH HomePage (www.cdc.gov/niosh) under Funding
Opportunities.
Direct inquiries regarding programmatic issues to:
Lee M. Sanderson, Ph.D.
Office of Extramural Programs
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Road, N.E.
Executive Park Building 24, Room 1429, MS E-74
Atlanta, GA 30333
Telephone: 404/498-2546
FAX: 404/498-2571
Email: lsanderson@cdc.gov
Direct inquiries regarding grants management business matters to:
Mildred Garner or Robert Williams
Announcement Number OH-02-010
Grants Management Branch, Procurement and Grants Office
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
2920 Brandywine Road, Suite 3000
Atlanta, Georgia 30341
Telephone: 770-488-2745 or 770-488-2656
Email: mgarner@cdc.gov or rww8@cdc.gov
LETTER OF INTENT
Prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent by
June 11, 2002, that includes the following information:
o Descriptive title of the proposed research
o Name, address, and telephone number of the Principal
Investigator
o Names of other key personnel
o Participating institutions
o Number and title of this RFA
Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and
does not enter into the review of an application, the information
that it contains is used to estimate the potential review workload
and plan the review.
The letter of intent should be sent to:
Gwendolyn Cattledge, Ph.D., M.S.E.H.
Office of Extramural Programs
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Road, N.E.
Executive Park Building 24, Room 1423, MS E-74
Atlanta, GA 30333
Telephone: 404/498-2508
FAX: 404/498-2571
Email: gcattledge@cdc.gov
SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION
Applications must be prepared using the PHS 398 research grant
application instructions and forms (rev. 5/2001). The PHS 398 is
available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html in an
interactive format. For further assistance contact GrantsInfo,
Telephone 301/435-0714, Email: GrantsInfo@nih.gov. Information to
prepare a detailed budget is provided in the instructions. If the
proposed project involves organizations or persons other than
those affiliated with the applicant organization, letters of
support and/or cooperation must be included.
USING THE RFA LABEL: The RFA label available in the PHS 398 (rev.
5/2001) application form must be affixed to the bottom of the face
page of the application. Type the RFA number on the label.
Failure to use this label could result in delayed processing of
the application such that it may not reach the review committee in
time for review. In addition, the RFA title and number must be
typed on line 2 of the face page of the application form and the
YES box must be marked. The RFA label is also available at:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/labels.pdf
SENDING AN APPLICATION TO NIOSH: Submit a signed, typewritten
original of the application, including the Checklist, and three
signed photocopies, in one package to:
Center for Scientific Review (CSR)
National Institutes of Health
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1040, MSC 7710
Bethesda, MD 20892-7710
Bethesda, MD 20817 (for express/courier service)
At the time of submission, two additional copies of the
application must also be sent to:
Gwendolyn Cattledge, Ph.D., M.S.E.H.
Office of Extramural Programs
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Road, N.E.
Executive Park Building 24, Room 1423, MS E-74
Atlanta, GA 30333
Telephone: 404/498-2508
FAX: 404/498-2571
Email: gcattledge@cdc.gov
APPLICATION PROCESSING: Applications must be received by July 11,
2002. If an application is received after that date, it will be
returned to the applicant without review.
The CDC and NIOSH will not accept any application in response to
this RFA that is essentially the same as one currently pending
initial review, unless the applicant withdraws the pending
application. CDC and NIOSH will not accept any application that
is essentially the same as one already reviewed. This does not
preclude the submission of a substantial revision of an
application already reviewed, but such an application must include
an introduction addressing the previous critique.
PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Upon receipt, applications will be reviewed for completeness by
CDC and responsiveness by NIOSH. Incomplete or non-responsive
applications will be returned to the applicant without further
consideration.
Applications that are complete and responsive to the RFA will be
evaluated for scientific and technical merit by a scientific
review group convened by NIOSH in accordance with the review
criteria stated below. As part of the initial merit review, all
applications will:
o Receive a written critique
o Undergo a process in which only those applicants deemed to have
the highest scientific or technical merit, generally the top half
of the applications under review, will be discussed and assigned a
priority score
o Receive a second level of review by the NIOSH Secondary Review
Committee.
REVIEW CRITERIA
The criteria that NIOSH will use to review applications for
scientific merit and for meeting program objectives are provided
below. In the written comments, reviewers will be asked to
discuss the following aspects of your application in order to
judge the likelihood that the proposed research will have a
substantial impact on the pursuit of these goals:
o Significance
o Approach
o Innovation
o Investigator
o Environment
o Other
The scientific review group will address and consider each of
these criteria in assigning your application=s overall score,
weighting them as appropriate for each application. Your
application does not need to be strong in all categories to be
judged likely to have major scientific impact and thus deserve a
high priority score. For example you may propose to carry out
important work that by its nature is not innovative but essential
to move a field forward.
(1) SIGNIFICANCE: Did the applicant communicate the public health
importance of occupational violence? Have the broad, long-term
objectives of the project and expected accomplishments been
defined? Does this research address an important problem related
to the topical research issues outlined in this announcement?
Does the application describe the importance of the proposed
research and the role it will play in reducing the occupational
safety burden of violence in the workplace? If the aims of the
application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge be
advanced? What will be the effect of this research on the
concepts or methods that drive this field?
(2) APPROACH: Are the conceptual framework, design (including
composition of study population), methods, and analyses adequately
developed, well-integrated and appropriate to the aims of the
project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas
and consider alternative tactics? Is the time line proposed for
the project suitable and realistic?
(3) INNOVATION: Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches
or methods? Are the aims original and innovative? Does the
project challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies
or technologies?
(4) INVESTIGATORS: Are the principal investigator and
collaborators appropriately trained and well-suited to carry out
this work? Is the research proposed appropriate to the experience
level of the principal investigator and other researchers?
(5) ENVIRONMENT: Does the scientific environment in which the work
will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the
proposed experiments take advantage of unique features of the
scientific environment or employ useful collaborative
arrangements? Is there documentation of cooperation from
industry, unions, communities, or other participants in the
project, where applicable? Is there evidence of institutional
support and availability of resources necessary to perform the
project?
(6) OTHER: Adequacy of plans to include both genders, minorities
and their subgroups, and children as appropriate for the
scientific goals of the project. The adequacy of the proposed
protection of humans to the extent that they may be adversely
affected by the project proposed in the application. Does the
applicant fully describe the involvement of human subjects and
protections? The reasonableness of the proposed budget and
duration to the proposed research.
PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW CRITERIA
(1) Magnitude and severity of the condition (problem) in the
worker population.
(2) Likelihood of developing applied technical knowledge for the
prevention of occupational safety and health hazards on a national
or regional basis.
RECEIPT AND REVIEW SCHEDULE
Letter of Intent Receipt Date: June 11, 2002
Application Receipt Date: July 11, 2002
Anticipated Award Date: September 30,2002
AWARD CRITERIA
Award criteria that will be used to make award decisions include:
o Scientific merit
o Availability of funds
o Programmatic priorities
o Program balance for the three study types (priority for funding
at least one risk factor research project, one intervention
research project and one intervention evaluation project) provided
applications are of sufficient scientific merit.
REQUIRED FEDERAL CITATIONS
INCLUSION OF WOMEN AND MINORITIES IN RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN
SUBJECTS: It is the policy of the CDC to ensure that individuals
of both sexes and the various racial and ethnic groups will be
included in CDC-supported research projects involving human
subjects, whenever feasible and appropriate. Racial and ethnic
groups are those defined in OMB Directive No. 15 and include
American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African
American, Hispanic or Latino, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Islander. Applicants shall ensure that women, racial and ethnic
minority populations are appropriately represented in applications
for research involving human subjects. Where clear and compelling
rationale exist that inclusion is inappropriate or not feasible,
this situation must be explained as part of the application. This
policy does not apply to research studies when the investigator
cannot control the race, ethnicity, and/or sex of subjects.
Further guidance to this policy is contained in the Federal
Register, Vol. 60, No. 179, pages 47947-47951, and dated Friday,
September 15, 1995.
All investigators proposing research involving human subjects
should read the NIH Guidelines For Inclusion of Women and
Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research-Amended, October 9,
2001, published in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts on
October 9, 2001, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/women_min.htm
.,a complete copy of the updated Guidelines are available at
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/guidelines_amended_10_2001.htm
INCLUSION OF CHILDREN AS PARTICIPANTS IN RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN
SUBJECTS: It is the policy of NIH that children (i.e., individuals
under the age of 21) must be included in all human subjects
research, conducted or supported by the NIH, unless there are
scientific and ethical reasons not to include them. This policy
applies to all initial (Type 1) applications submitted for receipt
dates after October 1, 1998. This policy will be followed by
NIOSH for this announcement. All investigators proposing research
involving human subjects should read the NIH Policy and
Guidelines, on the inclusion of children as participants in
research involving human subjects that is available at
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/children/children.htm
Investigators also may obtain copies of these policies from the
program staff listed under INQUIRIES. Program staff may also
provide additional relevant information concerning the policy.
REQUIRED EDUCATION ON THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECT
PARTICIPANTS: If the proposed project involves research on human
subjects, the applicant must comply with the Department of Health
and Human Services (DHHS) Regulations (Title 45 Code of Federal
Regulations Part 46) regarding the protection of human research
subjects. All awardees of CDC grants and cooperative agreements
and their performance sites engaged in human subjects research
must file an assurance of compliance with the regulations and have
continuing reviews of the research protocol by appropriate
institutional review boards.
In order to obtain a federal-wide Assurance (FWA) of Protection
for Human Subjects, the applicant must complete an on-line
application at the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP)
website or write to the OHRP for an application. OHRP will verify
that the signatory official and the Human Subjects Protections
Administrator have completed the OHRP Assurance Training/Education
Module before approving the FWA. Existing Multiple Project
Assurances (MPAs), Cooperative Project Assurances (CPAs), and
Single Project Assurances (SPAs) remain in full effect until they
expire or until December 31, 2003, whichever comes first.
To obtain a FWA contact the OHRP at:
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/assurances/assurances_index.html or write to:
Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP)
Department of Health and Human Services
6100 Executive Boulevard, Suite 3B01, MSC 7501
Rockville, Maryland 20892-7507
(Note: For Express or Hand Delivered Mail, Use Zip Code 20852)
Note: In addition to other applicable committees, Indian Health
Service (IHS) institutional review committees must also review the
project if any component of IHS will be involved with or will
support the research. If any American Indian community is
involved, its tribal government must also approve the applicable
portion of that project.
Note: Investigators in states with existing statutes covering
guidance for the protection of humans, will be asked to submit
documentation detailing fully the state authority. If a state
does not have statutory authority for all the human subjects
activities proposed in the application, the awardee must obtain
human subject clearances as described above. The project plan in
the application must fully describe the involvement of human
subjects and protections. This information should be included in
the Human Subjects Research Section of PHS 398.
PUBLIC ACCESS TO RESEARCH DATA THROUGH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
ACT: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110 has
been revised to provide public access to research data through the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA-(45 CFR 74.36) under some
circumstances. Data that are (1) first produced in a project that
is supported in whole or in part with Federal funds and (2) cited
publicly and officially by a Federal agency in support of an
action that has the force and effect of law (i.e., a regulation)
may be accessed through FOIA. It is important for applicants to
understand the basic scope of this amendment. Guidance is
provided at:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/a110/a110_guidance_dec1999.htm
Applicants may wish to place data collected under this RFA in a
public archive, which can provide protections for the data and
manage the distribution for an indefinite period of time. If so,
the application should include a description of the archiving plan
in the study design and include information about this in the
budget justification section of the application. In addition,
applicants should think about how to structure informed consent
statements and other human subjects procedures given the potential
for wider use of data collected under this award.
URLS IN NIOSH GRANT APPLICATIONS OR APPENDICES: All applications
and proposals must be self-contained within specified page
limitations. Unless otherwise specified, internet addresses (URLs)
should not be used to provide information necessary to the review
because reviewers are under no obligation to view the internet
sites. Reviewers are cautioned that their anonymity may be
compromised when they directly access an internet site.
LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS: Applicants should be aware of restrictions
on the use of Health and Human Services (DHHS) funds for lobbying
of Federal or State legislative bodies. Under the provisions of
31 U.S.C. Section 1352, recipients (and their subtier contractors)
are prohibited from using appropriated Federal funds (other than
profits from a Federal contract) for lobbying congress or any
Federal agency in connection with the award of a particular
contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or loan. This includes
grants/cooperative agreements that, in whole or in part, involve
conferences for which Federal funds cannot be used directly or
indirectly to encourage participants to lobby or to instruct
participants on how to lobby.
In addition, no part of the Center for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) appropriated funds shall be used, other than for
normal and recognized executive-legislative relationships, for
publicity or propaganda purposes, for the preparation,
distribution, or use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication,
radio, television, or video presentation designed to support or
defeat legislation pending before the Congress or any State or
local legislature, except in presentation to the Congress or any
State or local legislature itself. No part of the appropriated
funds shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant or
contract recipient, or agent acting for such recipient, related to
any activity designed to influence legislation or appropriations
pending before the Congress or any State or local legislature.
Any activity designed to influence action in regard to a
particular piece of pending legislation would be considered
lobbying. That is lobbying for or against pending legislation, as
well as indirect or grass roots: lobbying efforts by award
recipients that are directed at inducing members of the public to
contact their elected representatives at the Federal or State
levels to urge support of, or opposition to, pending legislative
proposals is prohibited. As a matter of policy, CDC extends the
prohibitions to lobbying with respect to local legislation and
local legislative bodies.
The provisions are not intended to prohibit all interaction with
the legislative branch, or to prohibit educational efforts
pertaining to public health. Clearly there are circumstances when
it is advisable and permissible to provide information to the
legislative branch in order to foster implementation of prevention
strategies to promote public health. However, it would not be
permissible to influence, directly or indirectly, a specific piece
of pending legislation.
It remains permissible to use CDC funds to engage in activity to
enhance prevention, collect and analyze data, publish and
disseminate results of research and surveillance data, implement
prevention strategies, conduct community outreach services,
provide leadership and training, and foster safe and healthful
environments.
Recipients of CDC grants and cooperative agreements need to be
careful to prevent CDC funds from being used to influence or
promote pending legislation. With respect to conferences, public
events, publication, and grassroots: activities that relate to
specific legislation, recipients of CDC funds should give
attention to isolating and separating the appropriate use of CDC
funds from non-CDC funds. CDC also cautions recipients of CDC
funds to be careful not to give the appearance that CDC funds are
being used to carry out activities in a manner that is prohibited
under Federal law.
SMOKE-FREE WORKPLACE: CDC strongly encourages all grant
recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the
non-use of all tobacco products, and Public Law 103-227, the
Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities
that receive Federal funds in which education, library, day care,
health care, and early childhood development services are provided
to children.
SMALL, MINORITY, AND WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESS: It is a national
policy to place a fair share of purchases with small, minority and
women-owned business firms. The Department of Health and Human
Services is strongly committed to the objective of this policy and
encourages all recipients of its grants and cooperative agreements
to take affirmative steps to ensure such fairness. In particular,
recipients should:
1. Place small, minority, women-owned business firms on bidders
mailing lists.
2. Solicit these firms whenever they are potential sources of
supplies, equipment, construction, or services.
3. Where feasible, divide total requirements into smaller needs,
and set delivery schedules that will encourage participation by
these firms.
4. Use the assistance of the Minority Business Development Agency
of the Department of Commerce, the Office of Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization, DHHS, and similar state and
local offices.
RESEARCH INTEGRITY: The signature of the institution official on
the face page of the application submitted under this Program
Announcement is certifying compliance with the Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS) regulations in Title 42 Part 50,
Subpart A, entitled Responsibility of PHS Awardee and Applicant
Institutions for Dealing with and Reporting Possible Misconduct in
Science.
The regulation places several requirements on institutions
receiving or applying for funds under the PHS Act that are
monitored by the DHHS Office of Research Integrity"s (ORI)
Assurance Program.
For examples: Section 50.103(a) of the regulation states: Each
institution that applies for or receives assistance under the Act
for any project or program which involves the conduct of
biomedical or behavioral research must have an assurance
satisfactory to the Secretary (DHHS) that the applicant: (1) Has
established an administrative process, that meets the requirements
of this subpart, for reviewing, investigating, and reporting
allegations of misconduct in science in connection with PHS-
sponsored biomedical and behavioral research conducted at the
applicant institution or sponsored by the applicant, and (2) Will
comply with its own administrative process and the requirements of
this Subpart.
Section 50.103(b) of the regulation states that: an applicant or
recipient institution shall make an annual submission to the [ORI]
as follows: (1) The institution"s assurance shall be submitted to
the [ORI], on a form prescribed by the Secretary,...and updated
annually thereafter...(2) An institution shall submit, along with
its annual assurance, such aggregate information on allegations,
inquiries, and investigations as the Secretary may prescribe.
HEALTHY PEOPLE 2010: CDC is committed to achieving the health
promotion and disease prevention objectives of Healthy People
2010, a national activity to reduce morbidity and mortality and
improve the quality of life. For the conference copy of Healthy
People 2010, visit the internet site:
http://www.health.gov/healthypeople/default.htm
AUTHORITY AND REGULATIONS: This program is described in the
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 93.262 for the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
This program is authorized under the Public Health Service Act, as
amended, Section 301(a) [42 U.S.C. 241(a)], and the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970, Section 20(a) [29 U.S.C. 669(a)].
The applicable program regulation is 42 CFR Part 52. This program
is not subject to the intergovernmental review requirements of
Executive Order 12372 or Health Systems Agency Review.